Local communities have many of the tools they need to protect the health and safety of their residents.

As the Trump Administration looks to new federal energy policy, state and local authority, especially the power of regulating land use, will likely play an increasingly important role in protecting regions like the Northwest from the risks of coal, oil, and gas. Indeed, threatened by a tsunami of energy export projects, a number ofcities and counties in the Northwest are defending themselves from new energy export projects by reforming their land use and development codes. It’s a strategy that has paid dividends forthe Thin Green Line, Cascadia’s resistance to ill-conceived fossil fuel export schemes, which is likely to be increasingly important in the next few years.

Of course, the Northwest is not the only region where cities, counties, and states have tried to constrain the reckless advances of the fossil fuel industry. Local governments across the US are experimenting with a variety of opposition strategies to protect themselves from volatile oil trains, widespread fracking, and offshore oil drilling—strategies that we explore in this second installment. Although many of these localities have been confronted with legal challenges, it’s increasingly clear that local communities have many of the tools they need to protect the health and safety of their residents. They just may not know it yet.

Oil shipment regulations

In February 2016, the city of Benicia, California, denied the oil company Valero a key permit to build an oil train unloading facility. The company challenged Benicia’s decision on the grounds that the City based its permit denial in part on the anticipated environmental impacts of increased rail traffic to serve the site, a move that the company argued was in effect a regulation of Union Pacific’s railroad and was therefore preempted by federal law. Railroads are by law largely exempt from local and state oversight and are instead almost exclusively regulated under the authority of the federal government.

Several oil companies supported Valero’s petition to the USSurface Transportation Board (STB), the federal agency that resolves railroad service disputes. The companies asked the Board to conclude that the City had engaged in “impermissible indirect rail regulation.” The STB sided with Benicia, finding that federal law does not deny local governments land use permitting discretion over oil companies’ proposed oil train projects. Specifically, the STBprovided guidance that because Valero is neither a “rail carrier” nor an agent of the rail carrier Union Pacific, Benicia’s ruling was not preempted by federal law and did not interfere unduly with the railroad’scommon carrier operations.

Earlier, in September 2014, the STB had decided a related case in Grafton, Massachusetts, this one pertaining to a liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) rail-to-road transfer facility proposed in the city. In that case, the STB ruled against Grafton, stating that local requirements were preempted by federal law because the trans-loading operation at the site was explicitly a rail business. In the Benicia decision, however, the STB clarified that “localities retain their reserved police powers to protect the public health and safety so long as their actions do not discriminate against rail carriers or unreasonably burden interstate commerce.”

Many observers are keenly awaiting the outcome of a lawsuit over crude oil facilities in Portland, Maine. On July 21, 2014, the Portland City Council passedan ordinance amending the zoning code to prohibit the bulk loading of crude oil onto marine tanker vessels within city limits. The ordinance drafting committee noted in its recommendation that bulk oil loading operations are a type of land use that “has never been a traditional land use within the City” and that significantly impact “future development of the City’s waterfront, air quality, scenic ocean views, and land-use planning vision.” The measure passed 6 to 1.

In February 2015, Portland Pipe Line Corporation filed a lawsuit arguing that the ban was unconstitutional. The suit claimed the ordinance interferes with interstate trade, discriminates against Canadian interests, devalues the company’s pipeline, and is preempted by federal government authority. In February 2016, in a blow to the city, a judgedeclined to dismiss the corporation’s suit. The City has so far spent more than$748,000 defending the ordinance and expects that costs could reach $1 million before the matter is settled. A judge mayresolve the case by summary judgement in early 2017, but if all the legal issues are not fully resolved on the summary judgement motions, it will likely proceed to trial.

It’s at the local level, though, where efforts to ban fracking are most prolific and also most uncertain.

It’s at the local level, though, where efforts to ban fracking are most prolific and also most uncertain. For example, in November 2016, voters in Monterey County, California, passedMeasure Z, a ballot initiative that prohibits new fracking operations and other high-intensity extraction techniques. It is theseventh county fracking ban in California, but the first in a county that’s a major oil producer. The measure’s reach is limited, though. It does not apply to offshore oil and gas operations, nor does it prohibit operations at existing oil and gas wells in the county, which number over 1,500. Moreover, ananalysis by the Monterey County Council found the measure may actually allow replacement wells.

The County Council expressed uncertainty about whether the measure may be preempted by California state law, a concern based on the state’s exclusive right to regulate underground drilling operations (local governments can regulate only surface land uses in California) and argued that litigation would be likely. Indeed, just weeks after the measure passed, Aera Energy filed a lawsuitclaiming that Measure Z is preempted by state law. Aera also claims that implementation of the measure would amount toa “taking” of property without just compensation, in violation of state and federal law, because it would result in the loss of its ability to produce oil in Monterey County. The legal action blocks the County from implementing part of Measure Z, but Monterey will proceed with implementing other components of the measure, and itplans to vigorously defend the initiative.

Also on the local level, in May 2016, Commissioners in Boulder County, Colorado, replaced a four-year-old moratorium on applications for oil and gas development in unincorporated areas of the county with anew, more durable ban on oil and gas operations. The new ban took note of a finding by Colorado’s Supreme Court that similarbans in nearby Fort Collins and Longmont were preempted by state law. One of the primary problems with the Fort Collins and Longmont resolutions was the duration of their moratoriums, and Boulder County was in a similar situation with its original temporarymoratorium. First imposed in 2012, the county had extended and amended it several times, so that it was not set to expire until 2018. But the new Boulder Countymoratorium is part of aresolution that establishes a temporary ban while county staffers formulate amendments to county land use and zoning regulations that govern oil and gas development. The newresolution recommends that the commission continue the ban until safety concerns are better understood, although it notes that the County is preempted from a multi-year moratorium.

Overall, some state supreme courts have affirmed local zoning rights to prohibit fracking, while others have found that some or all local actions are preempted by state law. For example, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 2013 affirmed the right of municipalities toregulate fracking through local zoning laws. And in June 2014, the New York Court of Appeals, the highest state court, alsodecidedthat towns may ban or limit oil and gas production through zoning ordinances. On the other hand, in February 2015, the Supreme Court of Ohio, in a narrow and contentious 4-3 decision, ruled that cities and towns cannot enact fracking bans through their zoning laws, determining that under the state constitution, thesole and exclusive authority over oil and gas production resides with the state.

Another tool in communities’ toolboxes

State and local land use authority may be a redoubt for communities against what appears to be a reckless advancement ofcoal,oil, andgas development by the new Trump Administration and the GOP-controlled Congress. Although there are some legal uncertainties, as well as a risk that some approaches are preempted by federal law, there is good reason to believe that zoning and related authorities will allow local governments—and the public they represent—to chart their own course toward a cleaner and safer future.

Comments

Don Steinke

February 7, 2017 at 10:10 am

Thanks Tarika, Eric, Deric

We need a lot people to step up at the local level and lead.
1. When your school board proposes a building bond measure, go there to advocate for conservation and renewables.
2. Show up at PUD meetings to promote the concept of “Choosing Clean Energy First” to meet demand for electric car charging.
3. Advocate for your city to do like Hoquiam WA, Vancouver WA, Portland OR, and Vancouver BC in terms of policies to transition away from fossil fuels. Portland banned new bulk fossil fuel storage facilities such as LNG storage. Vancouver BC has banned new gas-heat-dependent-buildings after 2030.

Stay up to date on the Northwest's most important sustainability issues.

Research Areas

Founded in 1993, Sightline Institute is committed to making the Northwest a global model of sustainability, with strong communities, a green economy, and a healthy environment. We work to promote smart policy ideas and monitor the region's progress towards sustainability.